↓ Skip to main content

Peritumoral edema shown by MRI predicts poor clinical outcome in glioblastoma

Overview of attention for article published in World Journal of Surgical Oncology, March 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
62 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
73 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Peritumoral edema shown by MRI predicts poor clinical outcome in glioblastoma
Published in
World Journal of Surgical Oncology, March 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12957-015-0496-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Chen-Xing Wu, Guo-Shi Lin, Zhi-Xiong Lin, Jian-Dong Zhang, Shui-Yuan Liu, Chang-Fu Zhou

Abstract

Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) plays an irreplaceable role in the preoperative diagnosis of glioma, and its imaging features are the base of making treatment decisions in patients with glioma, but it is still controversial whether peritumoral edema shown by MRI from preoperative routine scans are associated with patient survival. The aim of this study was to assess the prognostic value of preoperative MRI features in patients with glioblastoma. A retrospective review of 87 patients with newly diagnosed supratentorial glioblastoma was performed using medical records and MRI data from routine scans. The Kaplan-Meier method and COX proportional hazard model were applied to evaluate the prognostic impact on overall survival of pretreatment MRI features (including peritumoral edema, edema shape, necrosis, cyst, enhancement, tumor crosses midline, edema crosses midline, and tumor size). In addition to patient age, Karnofsky performance status (KPS) and postoperative chemoradiotherapy, peritumoral edema extent and necrosis on preoperative MRI were independent prognostic indicator for poor survival. Furthermore, patients with two unfavorable conditions (major edema and necrosis) had a shorter overall survival compared with the remainder. Our data confirm that peritumoral edema extent and necrosis are helpful for predicting poor clinical outcome in glioblastoma. These features were easy to determine from routine MRI scans postoperatively and therefore could provide a certain instructive significance for clinical activities.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 73 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Netherlands 1 1%
Brazil 1 1%
Unknown 71 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 16%
Student > Bachelor 12 16%
Student > Master 8 11%
Researcher 6 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 7%
Other 13 18%
Unknown 17 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 28 38%
Engineering 7 10%
Neuroscience 6 8%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 4%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 3%
Other 8 11%
Unknown 19 26%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 11 March 2015.
All research outputs
#3,439,514
of 4,859,554 outputs
Outputs from World Journal of Surgical Oncology
#524
of 1,087 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#106,025
of 146,092 outputs
Outputs of similar age from World Journal of Surgical Oncology
#62
of 116 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 4,859,554 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,087 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 1.3. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 146,092 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 116 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.